Journals / Journal of Yasar University / 2013 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 30

Gelişmekte olan piyasa ekonomilerinin yakınsama deneyimleri: (1950-2008)

Convergence experiences in emerging market economies: (1950-2008)

Pages
5105–5122
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Besides, findings also show that there aren t any non-linear effects in those sample countries and as per the Kapetanios, Snell, and Shin (KSS) (2003) Test results, it couldn t be inferredthat there is any convergence over the sample.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this paper, we study the GDP per capita convergence in emerging market economies forthe period of 1950-2008.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, GDP percapita convergences in 25 developing countries were tested by ADF unit root test, Nahar and Inder(2002) Test and Kapetanios, Snell, and Shin (KSS) (2003) Test, which is based on the non-linear timeseries technique.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Besides, findings also show that there aren t any non-linear effects in those sample countries and as per the Kapetanios, Snell, and Shin (KSS) (2003) Test results, it couldn t be inferredthat there is any convergence over the sample.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this paper, we study the GDP per capita convergence in emerging market economies forthe period of 1950-2008. As the convergence in emerging market economies hasn t been concernedas much as in the developed countries in the literature, hereby the situation of the convergence inemerging market economies is tried to be found out by the investigation. For this purpose, GDP percapita convergences in 25 developing countries were tested by ADF unit root test, Nahar and Inder(2002) Test and Kapetanios, Snell, and Shin (KSS) (2003) Test, which is based on the non-linear timeseries technique. While ADF unit root test allows to infer that there is convergence upon to the usedseries are stationary, the Nahar and Inder (2002) Test asserts that the existence of the convergencecould also infer whether the used series are not stationary. On the other hand, the Kapetanios, Snell,and Shin (KSS) (2003) Test reveals that, if non-linear time series are stationary, the convergence couldbe inferred. In order to reach to the target aimed by the study, said tests were implemented. As perthe results of Nahar and Inder (2002) Test, which emphasize that the existence of the convergencecould be inferred whether the used series are not stationary? The findings show that there is polynomial type convergence toward the average of the sample in the 18 of those 25 marketeconomies. Besides, findings also show that there aren t any non-linear effects in those sample countries and as per the Kapetanios, Snell, and Shin (KSS) (2003) Test results, it couldn t be inferredthat there is any convergence over the sample.

Özet

Bu çalışmada 1950-2008 periyodundaki, gelişmekte olan piyasa ekonomilerindeki kişi başıgelir yakınsaması deneyimleri ele alınmaktadır. Gelişmekte olan piyasa ekonomilerindeki yakınsamaliteratürde gelişmiş ülkeler için olduğu kadar ilgi görmemiştir ve bundan dolayı bu çalışmaylagelişmekte olan piyasa ekonomilerindeki yakınsamanın durumu tespit edilmeye çalışılmaktadır. Buamaçla gelişmekte olan 25 ülke ekonomisindeki kişi başı gelir yakınsaması standart ADF birim köktesti, Nahar ve Inder (2002) Testi ve doğrusal olmayan zaman serisi tekniğine dayanan KSS testi ileincelenmektedir. ADF birim kök testi incelenen serilerin durağan olması durumunda yakınsamaçıkarımına izin verirken, Nahar ve Inder (2002) Testi ise incelenen serilerin durağan olmamasıdurumunda bile yakınsama çıkarımının yapılabileceğini ileri sürmektedir. Öte yandan KSS testi,doğrusal olmayan zaman serilerinde durağanlık bulgusunun yakınsama çıkarımı yaratacağını ortayakoymaktadır. Bu çalışmayla hedeflenen amaca ulaşabilmek için söz konusu testler uygulanmış olupele alınan serilerin durağan olmaması durumunda bile yakınsama çıkarımının yapılabileceğinivurgulayan Nahar ve Inder (2002) Test sonuçlarına göre 25 piyasa ekonomisinden 18inin örneklemortalamasına doğru polynom tipi yakınsama davranışı bulunmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, bulgularörneklem ülkelerinde herhangi bir doğrusal olmayan etki bulunmadığını ve Kapetanios, Snell, andShin (KSS) (2003) Testi sonuçları ise örneklem ülkelerinde yakınsama bulgusu çıkarımıyapılamayacağını göstermektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇAMURDAN, B., CEYLAN, R. (2022). Gelişmekte olan piyasa ekonomilerinin yakınsama deneyimleri: (1950-2008). Journal of Yasar University, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 30, 5105–5122. https://ajindex.com/articles/568857

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Baumol, W. J. (1986). “Productivity Growth, Convergence and Welfare: What the Long-Run Data Show?”, The American Economic Review, 76(5): 1072-1085.
  2. Barro, R. J. (1991). “Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2): 407-443.
  3. Barro, R. J., and Sala-i Martin, X. (1990). “Economic Growth and Convergence Across the United States”, NBER Working Paper No:3419. Barro, R. J., and Sala-i Martin, X. (1992). “Convergence”. Journal of Political Economy, 100: 223-251.
  4. Bernard, A. B., and Durlauf, S. N. (1995). “Convergence in International Output”, Journal of Applied Economics, 10(2):97-105.
  5. Bernard, A. B., and Durlauf, S. N. (1996). “Interpreting Tests of the Convergence Hypothesis”, Journal of Econometrics, 71: 161-173.
  6. Cheshire, P., and Carbonaro, G. (1995). “Convergence, Divergence in Regional Growth Rates: An Empty Black Box?”, In H. Amstrong and R. Vickerman (eds)Convergence and Divergence among European Regions. London: 89-111.
  7. Cheshire, P., and Carbonaro, G. (1996). “Urban Economic Growth in Europe: Testing Theory and Policy Prescriptions”, Urban Studies, 33(7): 1111-1128.
  8. DeLong, B. (1988). “Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: A Comment”, The American Economic Review, 78(5):1138-1154.
  9. Dowrick, S., and Nguyen, D. (1989). “OECD Comparative Economic Growth 1950-1985: Catch-up and Convergence”, The American Economic Review, 79(5):110-130.
  10. Evans, P. and Karras, G. (1996). “Convergence Revisited”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 37: 249- 265. Friedman, M. (1992). “Do Old Fallacies Ever Die?”. Journal of Economic Literature, 30:2129-2132.
  11. Greasley, D., Oxley, L. (1997). “Time-series based tests of the convergence hypothesis: some positive results”, Economics Letters, 56(2): 143-147.
  12. Islam, N. (1995). “Growth Empirics: A Panel Data Approach”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110:1127-1170.
  13. Islam, N. (2003). “What Have We Learnt From The Convergence Debate?”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 17(3):309-362.
  14. Lucas, E. R. Jr., (1988). “On the mechanics of economic development”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1): 3-42.
  15. Luukkonen, R., Saikkonen, P., Terasvirta, T. (1988). “Testing Linearity Against Smooth Transition Autoregressive Models”, Biometrika, 75: 491-499.
  16. Kapetanios, G., Snell, Y., Shin, A. (2003). “Testing for Unit Rooting the Nonlinear STAR Framework”, Journal of Econometrics, 112:359-379.
  17. King, R. G., Rebelo, S. T. (1989). Transitional Dynamics and Economic Growth in the Neoclassical Model”, NBER Working Paper,